Posted on 05/26/2004 12:43:21 AM PDT by churchillbuff
We do have such brave cowards here.
Yes, the right to keep and bear arms does threaten terrorism.
However, terrorism can threaten the right to keep and bear arms. For example, 3,000 people who were at the WTC on 911 can no-longer exercise that right.
No, in fact it is the media that has revitalized the terrorist network of Osama if anyone has. Acting like our President is the biggest enemy of this nation has most likely made him more than ready to prove them wrong. Clinton's refusal to acknowledge his acts of terror as just that made him escalate the violence each time.(according to statements made by him and his minions at the time)
Piles of them;unfortunately.
Oh, and thank you for giving me a perfect spot to put my mighty and much feared...
Questions of Ultimate Iraqi Wisdom!
Finish one or more of the following sentences and show us the boffo supra-genius reasoning that lead you to it:
1. Iraq was not a terrorist state, and my case for this assertion is...
2. Even though Iraq harbored, trained and funded terrorists, it was not a legitimate target because...
3. We should not be fighting the War on Terror at all because...
4. Fewer than 1,000 total military casualties in a war that started with the slaughter of 3,000 noncombatants on our home soil is a huge problem because...
5. If we leave terrorist states up and running, I foresee the next major terrorist attack will be prevented by...
On September 12th of '01, did you believe Al-Qaida will hit us again with a major attack in the next six months? That was 32 months ago. We're due for an attack, but we were due for an attack on September 12th and 13th, and on October 11th, and they never came. The reason they are regrouping now (if these are good reports) has little to do with Iraq and much to do with it taking them 32 months to regroup after we cut them into pieces in Afghanistan.
Are you really dense enough to think that finding bin Laden is just a simple matter of manpower? Or a simple matter of not being in Iraq? When we pull the last troops out of Baghdad, will he magically appear in a cell in Gitmo? Will we send a division from Iraq to Afghanistan and it will be just enough guys to find the cave?
Also note that you can't have it both ways: An Al-Qaida that can recruit a trillion jihadis while jihadis are being killed in droves far from the best targets is also well-run enough to keep it's leadership hidden. An Al-Qaeda that stupidly hands us Osama unless we're involved in Iraq is going to be fumblin' mumblin' and stumblin'. You can't have the easy Osama and the mighty al-Qaeda. One or the other.
The IISS pointed to the Soviet Union as a bunch of nice guys and Ronald Reagan as a warmongering nutcase in the 80s, IIRC.
Check the pattern: In 2001 Al-Qaida delivered a kiloton of combat power into Lower Manhattan and killed 3,000 American noncombatants in 90 minutes. In 2004, the only noncombatants they're able to hit are Muslims and contractors who volunteered to go to a war zone thousands of miles removed from the homeland.
Bottom line: IISS is full of crap, and if you've been a freeper since '98, you should have been able to figure that out.
For sure.
I think the chances that we only killed 2,000 Al-Qaida in Afghanistan are about zip, but let's say it's true. If Roosevelt had come out and said, "Hey, we killed 4% of the Japanese troops, no need to worry about sabotuers or submarines any more," would he have been hauled to the loony bin? You bet!
Percentage of reduction in Al-Qaida according to that figure: 4%
Percentage by year of terror attacks on U.S. soil:
2001: 100%
2002: 0%
2003: 0%
2004: 0%
Percentage reduction in terrorists harbored by Hussein regime: 100%
Percentage reduction in terrorists trained by Hussein regime: 100%
Percentage reduction in terrorists funded by Hussein regime: 100%
Nope, no disadvantage to the terrorists there...
I never thought I'd live to see the day that the spirit of Neville Chamberlain came back to sully an honorable man like Sir Winston Churchill.
What WMDs?
Sorry, can't have it both ways!
Thanks. Did I ever tell you how wise I think you are? Heh heh heh.
Take care.
Oh yes, those Al-Qaida guys, they only try hard to kill americans when we invade a country. They never hate us at all otherwise.
BTW, do you realize what a rhetorical question is?
LOL. I was going to ping you to this thread if you hadn't found it on your own. You're like a cat toying with a wounded rat with this guy. ;)
I just can't image how someone can be so abscessed to post this kind of drivel day after day.
Could that be the origin of his Freepername? That he is the ghost of Neville chamberlain, and Chamberlain always had a suppressed desire to see Churchill in the buff?
Oh, thanks also for the thought. If you do see one of his anti-war rants that I somehow miss pleace ping me. I wouldn't want Chamberlainbuff there to think I don't like him.
Sure, just like draining George Soros' bank account would be a distraction from getting Bush elected.
He was defending one of his anti-war threads quoting Churchill left and right, and proclaiming how Churchill only fought when it was necessary...and would never get involved in a senseless war.
Apparently he skipped over the section of the book dealing with Churchill's disastrous and bloody fool idea during WWI.
When I pointed it out to him he suddenly had to go somewhere.
Call me up when Schwarzkopf and Clancy announce that there were no terrorists trained, harbored or funded by the Hussein regime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.